ILMN vs LNTH Stock Comparison
Compare ILMN and LNTH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ILMN and LNTH?
LNTH leads the current stock comparison as Lantheus Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Illumina, Inc. vs Lantheus Holdings, Inc.
LNTH leads
LNTH leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LNTH, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Illumina, Inc.
Lantheus Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LNTH over ILMN, 61 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. LNTH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while ILMN holds the stronger quality profile. LNTH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LNTH today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. LNTH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Illumina, Inc. and Lantheus Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ILMN and LNTH against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience40 vs 69LNTH +29
- Value26 vs 53LNTH +27
- Quality78 vs 73ILMN +5
- Momentum47 vs 50Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LNTH. LNTH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; ILMN keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
LNTH's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ILMN and LNTH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LNTH (Lantheus Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
ILMN (Illumina, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 51.9% against 5.2%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
LNTHLNTH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ILMNILMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LNTHLNTH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LNTHLNTH on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
LNTHLNTH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ILMN | LNTH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -8.8% | +6.8% | LNTH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60% | +29% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LNTH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LNTH | 49 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | ILMN | revenue growth 6.2% vs 2.9%; EPS growth 55.7% vs -37.2%; TTM ROE 31.1% vs 23.3%; gross margin 66.8% vs 60.1%; operating margin 21% vs 19.4% |
| Valuation | LNTH | Value 26 vs 53 |
| Technicals | ILMN | Price vs 50-day 3.3% vs -2.2%; vs 200-day 31.4% vs 18.3% |
| Risk Resilience | LNTH | Risk Resilience 40 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | LNTH | Target upside -8.8% vs 6.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ILMN and LNTH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on LNTH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LNTH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LNTH +12
- 49 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- LNTH +5
- 56 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- LNTH +5
- 53 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when LNTH moved ahead of ILMN.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (30.49%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.74%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.96%)
ILMN is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.57%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.14%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ILMN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNTH's edge.
- 2ILMN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3LNTH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
ILMN leads on balance| Metric | ILMN | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 2.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 55.7% | -37.2% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 60.1% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 19.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 31.1% | 23.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.89 | 0.48 |
Performance
ILMN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ILMN | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.6% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.3% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.9% | 0.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 65.7% | 21.5% |
| Year to date | 53.5% | 50.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 105% | 87.2% |
Technicals
ILMN has the stronger structure| Metric | ILMN | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.5 | 52.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 10.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.3% | -2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 31.4% | 18.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.9% | 5.2% |
Risk
LNTH is the more resilient| Metric | ILMN | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.85 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.63 | 1.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.38 | 3 |
| Max drawdown | -25.7% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -11.6% | -9.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.8% | 35% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ILMN or LNTH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LNTH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 61 against ILMN's 49. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. ILMN is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is ILMN or LNTH the better buy right now?
LNTH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LNTH over ILMN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LNTH leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; LNTH leads Value by 27 points; ILMN leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ILMN or LNTH?
Analyst price targets imply -8.8% upside for ILMN and +6.8% for LNTH, so the Street currently favors LNTH. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ILMN or LNTH?
LNTH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LNTH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, ILMN or LNTH?
ILMN on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, ILMN or LNTH?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, ILMN or LNTH?
LNTH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LNTH on Risk Resilience, by 29 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ILMN more profitable than LNTH?
ILMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 66.8% vs 60.1%; operating margin 21% vs 19.4%; ttm roe 31.1% vs 23.3%.
Is LNTH's lead over ILMN getting stronger or weaker?
LNTH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when LNTH moved ahead of ILMN.
What would change the ILMN vs LNTH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ILMN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNTH's edge; ILMN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; LNTH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ILMN and LNTH?
ILMN: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LNTH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on ILMN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LNTH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ILMN and LNTH with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.